Thannk you very much, I am going to go way out of my way not to revert more than once every 24 hours, and to avoid this particular subject for awhile as well. Your action gives me a very positive feeling about the project, its rules, and the spirit behind them. Frankly, if it were up to me, non-vandalism reverts wouldn't be allowed at all. I really wish there could be some final say on differences of opinion, or at least a more functional and civil manner of achieving concensus than the current approach. I don't have an easy answer, and am aware of the dangers of instruction creep, but I do think this is an important problem, with reprecussions both in article quality and editor stress and satisfaction.

Jack

On 5/27/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:

Jack Lynch (jack.i.lynch@gmail.com) [050527 21:08]:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Spade#3RR_violation I feel this was a wrongful block.

I've unblocked, though to keep the peace I would suggest you not be the one to make it back that way again for now, but make your case on the talk page. You'll know you've made your case when someone else makes the change. (One of the points of 3RR is that not everything in the article has to be correct right now :-)

• d.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l